Skip to main content

I subscribe to the Washington Post, so you don't have to! No, actually I subscribe because it is my local paper. Sigh. Anyway, in this morning's paper there was an article headlined "Health law's 'losers' lash out" by Ariana Eunjung Cha and Lena H. Sun.  The article described people who were allegedly facing worse, more expensive coverage under the Affodable Care Act.  Now, this is not to defend the catastrophic rollout or to allege that there will be no losers under Obamacare (although I do believe that in the not so long run we will all be better off).  No, what this is about is my dismay at the sloppy reporting that I see in all of these Oooh, Scary, Obamacare Horror Stories.  So, I fired off this e-mail to the journamilists responsible - my attempt at snark.  A feeble attempt I am sure but, sheesh, I was so annoyed......

Dear Reporters,

Received an incomplete paper this morning  - must have been a printing error or something.  Because in my paper this morning (I am old school I get hard copy still) there was some text missing from your article on  "sticker shock."  The paragraph where you describe how you and your reporting team independently verified and confirmed the information given to you by the Prestins, Ms Persico and others about how Obamacare will negatively impact them was missing.  Surely you must have done such due diligence especially given how so many other reporters have been slightly burned by Obamacare horror stories that turn out not to be so horrible after all (e.g., Diane Barrette the woman featured in a CBS story and then on FOX News).

I know it is the printers who are responsible for getting your story fully into print and not yours.  So I will, of course, get in touch with circulation and ask for a new copy of today's paper which will hopefully contain the missing text.  But just wanted to let you know because I can imagine it must be frustrating to see all your hard investigative work and research go to waste because the printers didn't do their job.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Be interesting if they answer. I sent one to a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, marykk

    reporter with a very easily confirmed major blunder, somewhat along the lines of "The Washington Monument, in East Potomac Park . . ." (fabricated illustration, though it would no longer surprise me in print) in scope and never got a peep.

    I too still take the print copy, partly to support a semi-sane voice in the capital city, but ever since the decision to abolish the ombudsman in favor of "other accountability" I've had a feeling the paper really is not that interested in correcting some pretty terrible reporting. It does well on the major stories, but some of the stuff in there must be written by the "C u their" texting crowd that "fact check" with Wikipedia as the ultimate reference.

    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

    by pelagicray on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:01:21 AM PST

    •  Doubt they will answer (0+ / 0-)

      only other time I've e-mailed writers was in response to an article in the Sunday opinion section.  This was during the 2008 primary season and the two writers laid out in a very nice, coherent, well reasoned manner why they supported Hillary Clinton.  I wrote back and stated my reasons for supporting Obama.  They wrote back, very graciously, thanked me for my input and said they respected my POV.  

  •  Nice. Everyone needs to call this out (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marykk, stellaluna, hannah

    everywhere they see it.

    Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

    by PsychoSavannah on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:02:59 AM PST

  •  Read that too. I thought 'puulleeze' (0+ / 0-)

    They even managed to have a pic with the 'angry' consumer looking all angry and stuff.

  •  I read the article (online) and had a hard (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glynis, Hirodog, UnionMade, blw, JBraden

    time believing the story.  Especially the one about the 58 year old attorney who was going to pay more for less coverage.  Her current plan was less than $300/mo.  She said she "could" end up paying $5000 a year more.  I would love to see what policy a 58 year old woman had for less than $300/mo that would cover more than any plan in the ACA.  I think there is something smelly about this story.  Trust me, I've looked for plans over the years for 50+ female attorneys and I have yet to see any decent plan that was that cheap.

    "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

    by stellaluna on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:15:28 AM PST

  •  Look, people just need to realize (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, annecros, Willa Rogers, auapplemac

    that yes, there are going to be some people who had insurance that they liked and can no longer keep, who are going to be worse off after the ACA.

    People look kind of silly fighting back at every single story -- "No!  It can't be true! I don't believe it!  It's a lie!"  

    Certainly, certainly, there are going to be people who are better off -- most notably, people who did not have health insurance before.  No question about it.  

    But there are also going to be people who are going to be unhappy that they are now forced to buy more expensive insurance that they neither want nor need, and/or insurance that severely restricts their choice of doctor as a measure to keep costs down.  No question about it.

    Are people here going to pooh-pooh this story, too?  That's the most gut-wrenching thing I've read about someone losing coverage under the ACA.  (It was discussed on Morning Joe this morning, and I suspect it's going to gain some traction in the next several days.)

    This is a self-inflicted wound by the administration.  They clearly knew, when the President was out there saying, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" that this was not going to be categorically true.  They clearly knew that there were going to be SOME who had to buy more expensive coverage that they did not want nor need as part of the subsidy of those who did not have access to health insurance or health care.   They clearly knew that, when the insurance companies were forced to cover things that were money losers for them, the insurance companies were going to be forced to do other things that cut costs for them (like have very restrictive doctor pools).  That's the way the system was designed.  The President should have been honest about that.  But instead, he misled people into believing that we would going to bring millions of people into the system without any disruptions for those who had health insurance that they were satisfied with.  He didn't qualify his statements so as to be honest.  He should have.   Clearly, when the ACA was passed, the Administration was aware of the effects this would have in the private insurance market.  If they were NOT aware, if they simply closed their eyes as to how the private insurance companies would react to the new strictures of the ACA, that would have been completely incompetent.  I do not believe the Administration is completely incompetent.  

    Right now, I think people need to simply accept the fact that the Administration was not honest in selling the ACA.  At this point, there's no question about that.  Even the President's supporters have admitted as much, saying, in essence, (as Robert Gibbs did this morning) well, he was only not being honest with respect to 5% of the people.   But it certainly matters to those 5%.  

    Trying to deny the obvious will only bring more and more stories to the forefront.  (As I said yesterday, I have relatives in California who are in the 5%, and who feel misled because they can't keep their plan and now will probably have to pay about double in premiums and may not have access to all the doctors they used.)  Instead of trying to deny, this is a far, far, far better message:  

    (although I do believe that in the not so long run we will all be better off)
    The only way to stop the bleeding now is for the Administration to do a mea culpa, say they shouldn't have been so categorical about nobody who was happy with their plan losing their plan or their doctor, and focus on the fact that anything this significant is certainly going to cause disruptions in the near term but that they believe we will all be better off in the long run.  And perhaps they might even propose a fix to help smooth things over for those who feel they were misled.  
    •  Nobody WANTS medical/surgical care, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      except the tummy tuckers and face lifters. Real medical/surgical care to address illness and injury is what is commonly called a DISUTILITY. It's something people need, if they want to survive longer, but don't want. Which is why it is not suited for the market, which is set up to deal with wants/desiderata.
      Calling it health care was a propaganda effort to get around the fact that disutilities are basically undesirable. The only way to encourage repeat custom, which the free market demands to insure profits, is to trick people.

      Now, one problem with this, in addition to tricking people not being nice, is that people hate being tricked so much that they prefer to admit to being wrong and, in so doing, let the trickster off the hook. I think it's pride that leads us to deny having been rooked. So, we can expect people to be mad and in denial about having been took. We should not expect gratitude for having opened people's eyes.

    •  That is not PPACA...that is the insurance (4+ / 0-)

      companies and people better start being mad at the right fucking people.

      Stop deflecting blame.  The insurance companies did not have to cancel policies...they could have changed them, made them compliant, kept ALL the doctors in the plans in the exchanges, and charged the same amount of money because they are getting a shitload of new "customers".

      But they didn't.

      They went for the fucking profit.

      So, please make sure your relatives point their ire in the right direction:  parasites, called insurance companies, who contribute ZERO to actual health care, just suck money out of the system.

      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

      by PsychoSavannah on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:06:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you have to wonder why (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        United Healthcare pulled out of the individual market in CA?

      •  Here's my dispute with that (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, annecros, Willa Rogers, auapplemac
        They went for the fucking profit.
        Of course they did.  That's what private, for-profit business is supposed to do.  The Administration is supposed to operate on the presumption that a private, for-profit business is going to go for profit.  

        It is literally absurd for any Administration to enact legislation that has the potential of cutting the profit margin of a private, for profit business, on the presumption that the business will simply acquiesce in making less profit.  If that's what they did, they were completely incompetent, and I do not think this Administration is incompetent.  

        And I can't believe anyone here is ignorant enough to have believed that if you cut into the insurance industry's profits in one area, they would not make up those profits elsewhere.  Surely you did not believe the insurance industry would simply say, sure, we'll make less profits, we would try to make up those profits elsewhere.    If you KNEW that the insurance industry was all about profits, then OF COURSE you expected that, when profits were cut in one area, they would make those profits up elsewhere.  And that assumption had to be factored into the ACA.

        The insurance companies did not have to cancel policies...they could have changed them, made them compliant, kept ALL the doctors in the plans in the exchanges, and charged the same amount of money because they are getting a shitload of new "customers".
        And a lot of the "new customers" were not going to be money-makers for them.  That's what happens when you mandate that they cannot turn people down for pre-existing conditions and that you have to do community rating.  You are cutting into their profits.  And, when you pass a law that deliberately cuts into their profits, you have to EXPECT that they are going to make up the profits elsewhere.  That is how private, for-profit business operates.  And the ACA DID expect that -- the ACA EXPECTED that insurers would make up those profits by mandating that some people be required to buy policies that are more comprehensive, and more expensive, than those people wanted or needed.  That's how the system is structured.  When you STRUCTURE a system where insurers can only make money if some people who had insurance that they liked and wanted to keep are forced to give up that policy and buy more comprehensive, you have to expect a private, for-profit insurer to push people to do that.   And that assumption had to be factored into the ACA.

        Any Administration who would be surprised by the notion that the insurance companies would go for profit is an Administration who is completely ignorant of business.  I certainly hope the Administration is not completely ignorant of business.  

        And this may be true:

        So, please make sure your relatives point their ire in the right direction:  parasites, called insurance companies, who contribute ZERO to actual health care, just suck money out of the system.
        But it is the administration who structured the system so as to mean that some -- like my relatives -- had to pay more for more insurance than they wanted or needed so as to make sure that the insurance companies would remain profitable after those other changes -- pre-existing conditions, community ratings -- were made, and then misled them into believing that the ACA would not affect their existing health insurance plans at all.  
        •  so what exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          did you expect them to do after factoring those assumptions into the ACA?

          •  I expected something more candid (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, annecros, Willa Rogers, auapplemac

            I expected them to say, "Some of you with particularly favorable insurance are going to have to pay more to bring others into the system."  I expected them to say, "If we expect insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions at a reasonable rate, that means there are probably going to be increases for others who had more favorable terms." I expected them to say, "community rating will mean lower, more affordable rates for some, but some increases for others, so that there's  more parity in what people pay, and so that, even though older people consume far more health dollars (and I say that as an "older" person not yet retired) their health insurance premiums are not so much more than those of young people."  I expected them to say, "Young healthy people are going to have to buy more comprehensive insurance than they may want or than may make strict economic sense right now so that the premiums can be more affordable for those who are older and not as healthy."

            All of those statements would have been honest, candid, truthful statements about outcomes that necessarily would happen when the administration decided to reform health care by doubling down on the existing insurance model.  

            Maybe, knowing the truth, a majority of the country would have said, "I understand it means disruptions for some, but we are all going to be better off in the long run."  Maybe, knowing the truth, the country would have demanded that there be some "bridge" for the people who felt the downside of the ACA.  But if that meant that, if people knew the truth, the ACA would not have passed, then that is how the system works.  The system is not supposed to be one where the elected officials mislead the public about the consequences of legislation in order to get it passed.    Maybe that would have meant the Administration WOULD have had to develop a plan where, if people did know the truth, they would support it.   Maybe that would not have meant doubling down on the existing insurance model.  But there was an obligation -- then and now -- to be honest and candid about the consequences of the legislation.  

            •  apparently you never read (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              any of the stories saying these things.

              •  The vast majority of people did not, of course. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, annecros, auapplemac

                The vast majority of people heard the President saying, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.  Period."  Over and over and over and over.  

                That repeated statement sends a message that is inconsistent with the reality I described above.  It sends a message that we will add all these people, and it will not affect you at all if you like your insurance plan:  "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, Period."  That was not the correct message, of course.  I knew it, which is why, even at the time, I was extremely suspicious of the President's repeated statements.  But I do not think it is reasonable to think that the vast majority of Americans hearing that statement over and over and over  are expected to delve into the weeds to see if the President is misleading them by making that statement over and over and over.    

                •  The President said it a few times (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glynis, Tonedevil

                  I think you've said it more in comments here in 3 days than he did in the 3 years since the law was passed.

                  Please - try to sway your relatives out of their selfish little bubble and make them understand that the President did not fuck over their plan.  Their FOR PROFIT asshole insurance company did.  Help us get them angry at the appropriate people, please.

                  Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

                  by PsychoSavannah on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:13:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is just denying reality. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annecros, Willa Rogers, auapplemac

                    what do you consider "a few"?

                    The President said it a few times (0+ / 0-)
                    The President said it in many of his stump speeches in the Presidential campaign, and said it in one of the Presidential debates, if I remember correctly.  

                    But, of course, you remember that the President spent months and months promoting the ACA, and he said it in virtually every speech he gave while he was out promoting the ACA.  It was a standard line -- and one he strongly emphasized -- in virtually every speech promoting the ACA. I would venture to say it's the line that people most remember when they think of the President promoting the ACA -- and he intentionally made it that way, because polls at the time showed something like 85% of people who had insurance were satisfied with that insurance, and he wanted to re-assure them that the ACA would not have a downside for them.  

                    And this:  

                    Their FOR PROFIT asshole insurance company did.  Help us get them angry at the appropriate people, please.
                    Is based on the assumption that you expect a FOR PROFIT company not to be motivated by PROFIT.  That is delusional.  You have to EXPECT a for profit company to be motivated to make profits.  

                    If the administration wanted a system where the main motivation was something other than profits, he should not have proposed a system where the main motivation was profits.  Or he should have said, "if we want to keep a private for-profit insurance system, when we add all these more expensive people, the for-profit insurance system is going to make up for it by charging others, perhaps you, even more."  That was the truth, and  he had to know it was the truth.

                    You are acting like the President was that guy in Casablanca.  He set up a system that relies almost entirely on a for-profit insurance model.  He imposed rules that cut their profits in certain areas (pre-existing conditions, community ratings, etc.) He can't then pretend to be shocked -- shocked! --  that the for-profit companies want to make up those lost profits elsewhere.  

                    I know that you did not want a for-profit model, and that's a legitimate position to take. But you cannot say that the Administration passed the ACA, a system that depends on the for-profit insurance model and that cuts those profits in some areas, and then bears no responsibility for the fact that the for-profit companies are going to make up those profits elsewhere.  That's just disingenuous.  Once you make the decision to go with the for-profit model, you are accountable for a system whereby the for-profit companies try to make a profit, because that's the system you designed.  

                    •  First of all, an administration (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      doesn't pass any law.  The Congress does.

                      You continue to conflate that shit.

                      So, done.

                      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

                      by PsychoSavannah on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:54:29 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Seriously???? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annecros, campionrules, auapplemac

                        You don't think the ACA is THE PRESIDENT'S accomplishment? It was proposed and promoted by the President, and he was the one who went out on the stump to promote it and sell it to people for a year.  And the administration has adopted use of the term "Obamacare."  And the President considers it his signature accomplishment of his first term.  the White House is still promoting the ACA as an achievement of the President.  See here and here .  According to David Axelrod,

                        Axelrod said that President Obama’s “view is that we ought to plow forward, make sure this can work, and we're going to look back at it and it's going to be our proudest accomplishment."
                        See here:
                        The administration and Democrats spent the better part of a year wrestling the bill through Congress amid unified Republican opposition and worries within their party that they were doing too much too fast. When he signed the legislation into law, Obama touted it as a historic moment — insisting he had done something that seven presidents had tried and failed to do — and telling ABC’s Charlie Gibson in December 2009 that “this will be the single most important piece of domestic legislation passed since Social Security.”
                        Are you REALLY arguing that the President had nothing much to do with the ACA other than signing it into law?????????

                        You are really grasping at straws.

      •  here's the answer (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, JBraden, Tonedevil

        from ThinkProgress

        The company, which only had 8,000 individual policy holders in California out of the two million who participate in the market, announced (along with a second insurer, Aetna) that it would be pulling out of the individual market in May. The company could not compete with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members,” UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained. “We will continue to keep a major presence in California, focusing instead on large and small employers.”
        So I wonder how much her premiums and copays have increased over the years?  She never did say.

        and this

        “One of the factors I believe contributed to this decision….is the special tax break that California law gives to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has allowed and continues to allow those two companies to avoid paying $100 million in state taxes a year.” “Aetna and United Healthcare don’t get the special tax break provided to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they faced a major competitive disadvantage in California.”
        •  BC/BS is non-profit in most areas (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          They still screw people (it is the insurance industry after all), but they don't do it for the obscene profits the other companies do.  So, they get some tax breaks.

          The whole system needs to collapse and the sooner people like coffeetalk's relatives realize who is really to blame, the sooner it will happen.

          Point the finger at obscene profit and then at the republicans because "socialism!!!!!!" was the word of the year when healthcare reform was being whispered about.  I am so frustrated with Americans who can not see past this private enterprise shit enough to see how badly it hurts them...every single day.

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:10:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then why aren't you angry at (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, auapplemac

            the President and the Democrats in Congress who doubled down on for-profit health insurance and then misled the American people -- leading them to believe there would be no downside to anyone who had insurance -- in order to get that "doubling down on for-profit health insurance" passed?  

            Perhaps if the administration had been more forthright about the fact that, in a for-profit system, cutting profits one place (pre-existing conditions, community ratings) likely means the for-profit insurer will recover those profits elsewhere (like on people who liked the insurance they had), the country might not have accepted a doubling-down on for-profit insurance.  

            It seems to me that if you are so very angry at the fact that we are dependent on for-profit insurance, then, you would be equally angry that the Administration had to mislead the country (and imply there would be no downside to people with insurance they liked) to get that passed.  Perhaps if the Administration had been forthright with people and said, yes, if you have insurance you like, it might be changed or cost more so that insurance companies can maintain their profit margins, people would not have accepted that and the Administration would have been forced to alter its approach.  

    •  Full speed ahead (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden, Tonedevil

      There are a number of different things going on here.  One issue is that the Republicans are bringing forward sad cases and angry people with sticker shock for the sole purpose of trying to generate widespread support for delaying and ultimately repealing the ACA.  The answer to that should be no, full speed ahead.  Take Edie Sundby's example -- repealing the ACA would not help her in any way; United Healthcare has already withdrawn from the California market and repealing the ACA isn't going to reverse that decision.  (They only had 8,000 subscribers and they had paid out $1.2 million on Sundby alone. They were running for the exit is my guess.)  Repealing the ACA would be the worst thing for Edie Sundby at this point.  For every Edie Sundby, there are many others who had no health insurance at all and no prospects of getting any, who are counting on the ACA, and who need it yesterday.  At this point, I would hope that the Administration's attitude is damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.  Make that website work, and let's go.

      The second issue is this whole thing about whether President Obama lied or oversimplified, and how he should handle that political problem.  I've spent quite a bit of time on this on other threads.  In the end, I've come around to the view that it is his problem, and he will handle it however he handles it, and it makes no difference to me.  He's pretty good at his job, so I'm not going to worry about that.

      The third issue is that doubtless there are various anomalies and inequities that are being exposed as the ACA is going into effect, and I have no doubt that eventually there will be some legislative fixes of some kind.

      Middle aged people in good health who make good money and who are self employed and who not part of a group plan are the ones who are really getting hit financially.  They are paying about the same as the rates that group plans get, but without any employer contribution.  So in other words, they are paying at least double what most people pay, and it can be like another mortgage payment.  I don't know what can be done about that.  All I can advise them is to hunker down financially and figure it out.        

    •  What does zimHole think? Is he troubled by the (0+ / 0-)

      insurance companies trying to trick customers into more costly policies? Or does the media's inability, or pretended inability, to see this cause him more concern?

      Honestly, the people who talk about honesty these days.

    •  This diary was intended to highlight (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      sloppy journalism.  No one can deny that there has been a lot of it surrounding these so-called "sticker shock" stories.  And, lots of people have been doing a great job debunking them.  And I think, yes, it is important to call it out - especially when it appears on the front page of a major newspaper such as the Washington Post (especially when they bury on page A15 a story about all the people losing food stamps!!!)  

      But, also, too I will share my two cents on the whole alleged dishonesty of the "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" statement:    embedded in that statement is the (IMHO quite reasonable) assumption that no one actually likes or wants crap/junk not really insurance insurance policies that will actually leave them up shit's creek with no paddle in case of serious illness or accident.  So, really, perhaps, the President was giving people too much credit by making that statement.

  •  I loved it. Absolutely excellent approach. (4+ / 0-)

    Yes, the administration should have been more up-front about the new requirements that insurance actually insure something, but just as certainly people taking money to call themselves journalists should engage in some journalism. Feet to the fire is good for everyone who might be cutting corners on their job. Journalists as well as Politicians and Bureaucrats.

    I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, as only one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by Bob the old soldier on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:23:47 AM PST

  •  Administration was upfront - 2009 NYT article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I also wrote on the Comments section the WP which is really a waste of time because the WP Comments sections  is filled with such hate and very little facts that I'm not sure anyone really reads them. I have a long history with different types of health insurance and a brief history without health insurnace. When my son was in high school I was working as a IT contractor. I purchased health insurance through Mega Health and Life insurance based out of Texas. I live in Jenkintown PA. I had access to my family doctor up the street and any hospital. I was happy - I paid $300 a month for the insurance for my son and myself. Then my son broke his leg playing high school football and I went from happy to horror. My son needed 1 week of hospital care, and two surgeries. Abington Hospital contacted me that my insurance company would only pay a small portion of my son's hospital bill; they also did not consider Megal Health real insurance. The billing lady though helped me - she told me that under PA law, our high school had to carry an accident policy rider for football. That insurance policy paid the hospital and prevented me from going into bankruptcy.
    In 2009 the NYT had an article about a man who had $800,000 hospital bill even though he had health insurace. The man filed bankruptcy. He was an IT consultant who contracted through TekSystems and was offered a mini-medical policy. This example and others was talked about often by the President and anyone who would listen. The WP reporters did not tell us about the hospitalization coverage for the people crying about their insurance. I would rather drive 100 miles to see a doctor than pay $800,000 for a hospital bill.
    We no longer have a press that tells facts - the WP is a perfect example. All anyone has to do is look up that article in the NYT - it tells you all you need to know about the consumer fraud that is now going to be eliminated. Jan 1st is great day even for the Tea Party and the WP - they are just are too busy lying and screaming to tell you so.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site